Kolkata Court January 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Smt. Archana Devi Vs. Kaji Majibur Rahaman and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Cal118
ORDER1. The present revisional application is directed against Order No. 130 dated 2nd January, 1995 passed by the 9th Court of Assistant District Judge at Alipore in T.S. No. 42 of 1990. By the impugned order the learned Judge has rejected the petition for expunging Exhibit 9 and also has further directed production of the physician for formation of satisfaction about the veracity of the medical certificate.2. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has first dealt with the first portion of the order, namely, rejection of a petiton for expunging Ext. 9. Mr. Banerjee has referred to the provisions contained in section 62 of the Evidence Act and has contended that in view of the evidence of P.W. 2 that the original is lying with the office of the P.W. 2 and in absence of production of the same, the Carbon copy of the self-same letter cannot be taken as a piece of evidence. Mr. Banerjee has also elucidated by way of reference to Section 62 of the Evid...
Punalur Paper Mills Limited Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Cal154,(1995)1CALLT241(HC),1995(1)CHN468,99CWN729
ORDER1. This is an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court for final judgment against the defendant for recovery of vacant possession as also for mesne profits. The fads inter alia involved in the suit are set out hereinafter:(a) The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the premises.(b) An Indenture of Lease was executed by and between the plaintiffs predecessor in title and the defendant on December 1, 1969. The said Indenture of Lease has also been duly registered. The Lease is for a period of 21 years commencing from the first day of November, 1969.(c) In terms of the said Indenture, the Lease has expired on 31st October, 1990. Though it is not required under the law yet out of abundant caution, the plaintiff by a letter dated 25th September, 1990 (Annexures 'A' to the A/R) duly informed the defendant of the imminent expiry of the Lease on 31st October, 1990 and intimated that the plaintiff's authorised representative will call upon the defendant t...
Rohit Kumar Modwel Vs. Sudipa R. Modwel
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC7
B.M. Mitra, J. 1. The present revisional application is directed against Order No. 2 dated 8th September, 1994 passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore in Act VIII, Case No. 245 of 1994. By the impugned order the Trial Court has issued a notice upon the opposite party-wife, directing her to produce the minor daughters before that Court on 29.9.94. The petitioner, husband, initiated a proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act on the allegation that as soon as he left his house on 28th June, 1994 for a short trip out of the city and after his return on 1st July, 1994 the petitioner found that the opposite party and his minor children absent at his residence. He subsequently came to know that his wife along with the said children went to her father's house at Siliguri. There are further allegations and/or insinuation that the opposite parry, wife, had also taken away valuables from the residence at the time of departure and the further case that was made that the c...
Anz Grindlays Bank and Another Vs. President, District Consumer Disput ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Cal104,99CWN483
ORDER1. In this writ application the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings being C.D.F. Case No. 94 of 1994 (Sarita Agarwal v. ANZ Grindlays Bank) pending before the respondent No. 1.2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 opened an account for availing banking services under the Cashette Scheme of the petitioner-bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). In terms of the said scheme credit limit/overdraft limit is allowed to the extent of 50% of the market value of the shares kept with the bank. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 made a request to the bank for withdrawal of shares of Tube Investment of India Ltd. on 20-9-93. It is admitted that the sanctioned credit limit of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was Rs. 73,600/- and out of the said amount they utilised a sum of Rs. 61,939/-.3. The respondent No. 3 on or about 24-9-93 stated that the sale proceeds would be deposited in the b...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Paks Trade Centre
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD313(Kol.)
1. The only ground in this appeal by the revenue is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the bad debts of Rs. 2,57,232 as deduction.2. The assessment year involved is 1989-90 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1989. The assessee claimed deduction on account of bad debts. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had written off the debts in its books of account. He further noticed that the assessee had filed suits in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the debtors and the suits were pending. He was, therefore, of the view that the debts in question were not bad and disallowed the claim.3. On appeal, the CIT(A) referred to the amendment made to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1-4-1989 and held that from the assessment year 1989-90 the claim for bad debts has to be allowed if the assessee writes them off in the books of account and there was no option available to the department to go into th...
Smt. Urmila Bharuka Vs. Coventry Spring and Engineering Co. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas197(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. This stay petition is directed against an order of the learned trial judge dismissing the interlocutory application in the civil suit filed by the appellant herein. Be it recorded that the plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit with a prayer for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, for the following reliefs :'(a) Declaration that the company is not entitled to make any allotment of shares in favour of the applicants to the issue of shares offered to the public for subscription by the company pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, and that the purported allotment of shares sought to be made by the company in respect of the said public issue on July 16, 1993, is illegal, null and void.(b) Declaration that the applicants including the plaintiff who had applied and subscribed, for shares of and in the company pursuant to the prospectus issued by the company dated February 24, 1993, are entitled to immediate refund of their app...
M.S. Natarajan Vs. Ramasis Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT280(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision the accused petitioner has come up before this Court praying for quashing the Complaint Case No. 175 C of 1993 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Howrah, and also for setting aside the order dated 2nd February, 1994 passed by the said learned Magistrate in the said case.The fact silhouetted behind this case is that the opposite party 1 herein filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is the proprietor of M/S. R.A. Pipe Fitting Co. of 12/5, Musalman Para Lane, P.S. Bantra, District Howrah, and deals in the business of iron pipe and pipe fittings. The complainant opposite party No. 1 received a letter from the accused petitioner herein on 11.10.91 asking for delivery of certain materials on terms that payments should be deferred by ninety days from the date of the delivery of the materials. The complainant opposite part...
In Re: Shree Bajarang Electric Steel Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT198(HC)
ORDERBaboo Lall Jain, J.1. This matter is coining up in the list for orders pursuant to the order dated 24th of January, 1994 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi (here-in-after referred to as 'AIFR'). The said appellate authority forwarded its recommendations to this Court by their letter dated 4th of February, 1994. The appellate authority after considering various aspects of the matter held that there was absolutely no substance in the appeal which was accordingly dismissed and the impugned order of the BIFR dated 7th of September, 1992 was confirmed by the said appellate authority.2. By the order dated 7th of September, 1992 the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (here-in-after briefly referred to as BIFR') inter alia held as follows :-'19. After carefully considering all the facts on record and submissions made at the hearing, the Bench concluded that no agreed scheme to rehabilitate the company was forthcoming. The ...
Gour Mohan Chowdhury and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1214
ORDERNripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision the accused petitioners have challenged the proceeding in connection with Howrah RPF (O.E.) Post Case No. 1(6)93 dated 15-6-93 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, being Case No. S. L. 84/93 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah.2. The brief background of the case is that the petitioners are the railway employees and at all material times posted and Carshed (Stores Section) Eastern Railway. The petitioner No. 1 is a senior electrical foreman, petitioner No. 2 a storekeeper in the carshed and petitioners Nos. 3 to 8 are railway employees and they are attached to the Carshed (Stores Section) and authorised to use stores and/or railway materials. On 15th June, 1993 at about 7.30 hours one railway lorry bearing No. WBI 7990 (loaded with railway materials) arrived at the main gate of the carshed and in that lorry three persons and the driver were found. When challe...
Debendra Nath Das Vs. Bibhuti Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2010
ORDERNripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. 1. By this revision the complainant petitioner has challenged Order No. 2 dated 8-7-94 passed in Criminal Motion No. 126 of 1994 by the District and Sessions Judge, Howrah, whereby the learned Sessions Judge refused admission of the criminal motion in limine on the ground that by one revisional application two orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah, being Order No. 52 dated 22-4-94 and Order No. 53 dated 30-4-94 passed in Case No. 2412C/89 having been challenged the said revisional application is not maintainable. 2. The brief background of the case is that in course of the trial some witnesses of the complainant, though summoned and appeared before the Court in answer to the summons could not be examined due to certain reasons. Prayer was made by the complainant for calling for the said witnesses as Court witnesses, and in the alternative, issuing fresh process upon the said witnesses. Adjournment was prayed by the complaina...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »